A blog for passing time, and passing messages about media, about media ecology which is the study of media environments, about language and symbols, about technology, about communication, about consciousness, about culture, about life and the universe, about everything and nothing, about time...

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Oops, I did it again, which is not about Britney Spears singing something inane, but me singing, metaphorically speaking, having been interviewed once again by Palash R. Ghosh for the International Business Times, following up on the previous interview he did with me, which I blogged about recently under the heading of
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly of TV News (remember?).So, this next interview was published by IBT on November 19, and entitled Fox Vs. MSNBC: The Ideological Battle In Broadcast News. And you can click on the link and read it there, or stick around and read it here, either way's fine with me.So ready or not, here we go with the interview:

The latest presidential election between the victorious Democrat Barack Obama and losing Republican Mitt Romney, as well as the continued gridlock in Washington, D.C., underscore the extremely polarized state of politics in contemporary U.S.Mass media, particularly cable news networks, feed into this scenario by frequently presenting biased -- and sometimes even inflammatory -- accounts of current events, in defiance of traditional journalistic standards and the concept of impartiality.Like any other capitalist enterprise, mass media is primarily driven by a desire for profits and high ratings. Consequently, the age-old precepts of responsible journalism have dramatically eroded.Conservatives think most of mass media exhibit a liberal bias, while liberals reject this assertion, claiming to the contrary that, as corporate entities, media adheres to right-wing ideologies.The International Business Times spoke to an expert on broadcast media to sort out this complex phenomenon.Dr. Lance Strate is professor of communication and media studies and director of the professional studies in new media program at Fordham University in New York City.IB Times: Critics and detractors of cable's Fox News claim the network has a right-wing bias and serves as a kind of propaganda arm for the Republican Party. But could one not make the same accusations about MSNBC -- that it espouses a decidedly left-wing bias?Strate: Rupert Murdoch, the right-wing media mogul, hired Republican political consultant Roger Ailes to create the Fox News Channel, and it was conceived and planned from the very beginning to present a highly conservative view of the world. MSNBC at first tried to take the non-ideological approach traditional to broadcast news operations but was unable to compete effectively with CNN's long-established reputation and Fox's combination of entertaining format and political focus.So, in order to distinguish itself from its competition, MSNBC became the mirror image of Fox, trying to do for the left what Fox had done on behalf of the right. Thus, the answer is yes, MSNBC has become infected by the bias virus and turned into the counterpart to Fox.IB Times: Where does CNN fit into this ideological battleground?Strate: CNN, in turn, uses this to bolster their image as the leading source of objective journalism on cable and could be considered the heir to CBS as the Tiffany Network in regard to news -- an image that is augmented by their strong involvement in international news.Recent promotional spots during the election had them claiming to be on the side of citizens, rather than one party or the other. Of course, the right claims that CNN exhibits a liberal bias, albeit one more subtle than MSNBC, and the left claims that they are ideologically conservative in essentially upholding the status quo.For example, in presenting the election as a horse race between Democrats and Republicans, and in all of the shouting matches between liberal and conservative spokespersons, where are the numerous other candidates and representatives from other parties, such as the Greens and Libertarians?IB Times: When did the very notion of liberal media bias arise? Was it during Richard Nixon's administration or before that era?Strate: It pretty much became a meme during the Nixon campaign, with his vice president, Spiro Agnew, complaining the loudest.During Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt's presidency, the talk was mainly of the press, and newspapers tended to favor Republican candidates, which was one reason why Roosevelt resorted to the radio in the form of his famous Fireside Chats.The shift from talking about the press to talking about the media came about during the '60s and was largely due to fact of television's newfound dominance in our culture and the influence of critic Marshall McLuhan in making the media part of popular discourse.IB Times: On an episode of “All in the Family,” Archie Bunker called Walter Cronkite a “pinko” and a “communist” (presumably due to Cronkite's opposition to the Vietnam War). But wasn't Cronkite widely admired and embraced by Middle America? Or was he also vilified by the right wing?Strate: Known as "the most trusted man in America," Cronkite began reporting that the Vietnam War was not going well in 1968, and from the right's point of view, this was a betrayal almost as egregious as Jane Fonda's visit to Hanoi. For the majority, however, this was a turning point in popular opinion, a visible demonstration of Cronkite's honesty and courage, and the anti-war movement did not really take off until after this occurred.Archie Bunker, and the kind of conservative views that he represented, was considered far on the fringe up until Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. Cronkite retired in 1981 and therefore did not run into much of a conflict with the ascendency of conservative politics in America.Interestingly, prior to the 1980 election, with Reagan perceived by many as an extremist and Carter as ineffectual, there was some talk of trying to get Cronkite to run for president, with polls showing that he had the potential to win such a campaign.IB Times: What do you make of the fact that Fox News consistently attracts higher ratings than either MSNBC or CNN? Does this mean that there are a lot more conservatives in the U.S. than liberals or moderates despite Obama’s reelection?Strate: It does reflect the strength of the conservative movement over the last few decades and the willingness of the audience to at least put up with that perspective. It also follows the rise of conservative talk hosts on radio -- such as Rush Limbaugh -- who have proven to be extremely popular.But more than anything, Fox News has embraced an entertaining format, and television is above all an entertainment medium. As author and critic Neil Postman put it, it is attention-centered, image-centered, emotion-centered, and Fox has come up with a successful combination of sensationalist reporting and political discussion that emphasizes dramatic confrontation, not to mention a stable of good-looking on-air personalities, and this has made it possible for them to attract and hold audiences better than their competitors.Of course, their audiences are still pretty small compared to the major networks.IB Times: In the recent presidential election, the New York Times endorsed Obama, while the New York Post and Daily News endorsed Romney. When a newspaper endorses a political candidate, are they not sacrificing their journalistic impartiality? What's the point of these endorsements? Do they have any influence on the electorate?Strate: Endorsements by newspaper editors is a longstanding tradition in the press and goes back to the days of the partisan press of the 18th century, long before the rise of objectivity in journalism in the 19th century. But keep in mind that for most of the history of the press in the U.S., cities typically had a number of different newspapers competing with one another. So the reach of each newspaper was limited and local rather than national, with many competing points of view.This is quite different from a handful of television channels competing for a national audience. Newspapers never had the reach or power of television programming. Moreover, in the papers, opinion was clearly segregated from objective reporting of the news and relegated to the op-ed pages, whereas on television clear boundaries of that sort simply do not exist. This is not to deny that different papers had different slants and their political allegiances could influence their coverage, but newspapers were also very responsive to their readership, being directly dependent on them, whereas television is more beholden to advertisers, with audiences being the "product" they sell to commercial interests.Perhaps the bottom line is that newspaper editors, in endorsing a candidate, were expected to provide a reasoned explanation for their support, that it was not an automatic display of ideological allegiance, which is why newspaper endorsements actually meant something and carried some weight with their readers. They are not without influence today, although nowhere near as much as they had before television came into the picture.IB Times: With regard to Fox and MSNBC, at two polar opposites of the ideological spectrum, what is behind their business model? Are they simply “preaching to the converted”? How can they increase their ratings and revenue if they stick to their respective ideologies?Strate: To a large degree, yes, they are “preaching to the converted,” and audiences generally seek out sources of news and opinion that are in line with their own prior values, beliefs and attitudes -- this is known as selective exposure.As a business strategy, it parallels the political logic of campaigning to your base. You are creating a homogenous audience that is relatively stable in size and predictable in terms of its characteristics, and advertisers like that -- they like to know exactly what they're getting and exactly what they're paying for. Beyond that, the goal is to provide an entertaining programming option. If folks will tune in to Bill O'Reilly to see who he yells at, even if they agree with the victim and not O'Reilly, then Fox's programming strategy is working. And it has worked well for them, much better than MSNBC, although they are improving with the likes of Rachel Maddow. But is there any doubt that if they could steal them away from Comedy Central, MSNBC would be happy to run "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and "The Colbert Report" on their network?IB Times: Was U.S. political debate always as polarized as it appears to be now? Or is this something new?Strate: We were even more polarized in the period immediately preceding the Civil War.What is strange about our time is that there is this extreme polarization between candidates and, to some extent on values, but it seems to be a divide based on emotional responses, not rational evaluation of the issues. Say what you want about it, slavery was one hell of an issue, there were rational explanations and motivations on both sides of the divide, and everyone knew exactly what the conflict was about and what was at stake.In this last election, there was little in the way of rational debate on economic issues, health care or foreign policy, and the differences between the two candidates were hardly clear at all. I think it all came down to which candidate voters felt to be most like them in style and tone and, yes, appearance and not whose thinking, ideas and ideals best matched their supporters and their interests.IB Times: Are on-air personalities at Fox and MSNBC selected primarily for their political views?Strate: They have to be willing to toe the party line, so to speak. Beyond that, on-air personalities everywhere are selected based on appearance and personality, how well they come across on television.IB Times: During the Cronkite-Murrow-Huntley/Brinkley days, did the network executives and advertisers pressure the news departments to slant controversial news topics, like McCarthy's communist witch hunt, the civil rights movement and Vietnam War?Strate: There were pressures from network executives and advertisers, absolutely, but there also were courageous individuals leading network news divisions whose allegiance was to the ideal of journalistic objectivity and public service, backed by FCC requirements for devoting some of their time on-air to the public interest, a notable example being Fred Friendly, who worked with Edward R. Murrow and helped to put an end to McCarthy and his "red scare."But television came to be characterized as the timid giant, because executives became frightened to death of controversy, of offending any segment of their vast audience, and, therefore, sought out the least objectionable content (which fits nicely with detached, objective reporting).The deregulation of broadcasting under the Reagan administration allowed executives to break down the ivory tower of broadcast journalism and place increasingly more emphasis on getting good ratings and, therefore, on creating entertaining programming.And cable is almost entirely free from the oversight that broadcasting requires, so not only news but all sorts of nonfiction programming from National Geographic, Discovery, Learning and the like become outlets for various kinds of nonsense, distortion or disregard for facts, pandering, and the trivialization of important issues and concerns.IB Times: ABC, CBS and NBC news have all seen their ratings eroding for years -- I assume cable TV and the Internet is responsible for this. What can they do to stop their declining numbers of viewers?Strate: There isn't much they can do about it. Most viewers today were long accustomed to watching nightly network news programs and continue to do so -- just as many have been in the habit of reading a daily newspaper.But younger generations do not share these habits. And where once it was an absolute requirement that a network provide a certain amount of news programming, it is now entirely possible that one of the major networks may simply decide that they no longer want to do the news, which was never profitable for them, always a loss leader, or perhaps they might decide to outsource their news coverage to a cable news source.But the era of the Big Three broadcast news divisions is over. We're seeing a return to a new, audiovisual version of the partisan press and to a wide variety of news sources online via blogs, Twitter, YouTube, sites from established news organizations domestic and foreign, sites like Wikileaks and human and algorithmic aggregators. This may be good in some ways, bad in other ways, and certainly suggests major changes in the ways in which campaigns are conducted and governments operate.

Now, who among us hasn't wanted to slow down reality at some point? So the idea seems to make a great deal of sense, on the surface, at least. And it seems to summon up those fantasies of having some sort of universal remote control where you can hit the pause button and the world around you freezes. You know, like the Adam Sandler movie, Click, although that is more about fast forward and rewind functions.

And then there was Clockstoppers, where the effect is a function of moving at superspeed. That was a somewhat innocent version of the fantasy. A more mature, albeit in certain ways immature exploration of the fantasy was the independent film, Cashback.

But this invention is about reality, not fantasy. Or reality in a virtual, augmented, or simply altered sense.

Look, there is nothing new about using technology to give us a view of reality that was previously unobtainable. Think telescope and binoculars, think microscope and magnifying glasses. And prisms and kaleidoscopes, for that matter. Not to mention the old mirror, mirror, on the wall. McLuhan stressed the idea that media are extensions of the senses that altered our modes of perception.

And for more traditional categories of media, the camera and photography gives us the close-up, and make that point-of-view commonplace. And if you think about it, it's a way of seeing that is impossible for the naked eye–if you got that close to something, you would be unable to focus. Of course, it is intrinsic to the very nature of photography that it captures a frozen moment in time, a snapshot of reality. And after photography comes the moving image, which adds slow motion and fast motion to our repertoire of unreal realities.So now, let's take a look at the next step in time distortion. Let me start with the write-up in DVICE:

The recent Judge Dredd reboot showed us a world in which a drug could dramatically slow the world down with pleasurable, or horrific effects. Now a very real inventor has created a helmet that simulates that kind of real-time slow motion perception, but without the druggy side-effects.

Created by German artist Lorenz Potthast, the Decelerator Helmet
allows the wearer to experience the real world at a slower speed that
can be adjusted using a small, handheld controller. Potthast embedded a
small computer and head-mounted display
inside the helmet, with an additional display on the outside of the
device, presumably to allow onlookers to see what the wearer is seeing.

Now, if you're thinking what I'm thinking, then words like, uh-oh, or huh??? are running through your head. This certainly doesn't look very advantageous, or like it would be much fun, does it? Well, let's get the rest of the brief write-up from DVICE:

Of course, crossing the street in a traffic-filled city with this
thing on wouldn't be a good idea, but in almost any other controlled,
assistant-guided situation, this device could deliver an amazing slo-mo
vision of reality that has never been seen before.

Potthast makes no mention of the software facilitating the device's
functions, nor if he has any plans to take it commercial, but in the
meantime you can see the Decelerator Helmet in action in the video
below.

Okay, so there's an admission that this doesn't seem like the most practical product in the world. But let's take a look at the video and see it in action:

The Decelerator Helmet is a experimental approach for dealing with
our fast moving society. The sense of vision is consigned to an
apparatus which allows the user a perception of the world in slow
motion.

In a increasingly hectic, overstimulated and
restless environment are the calls for deceleration omnipresent. The
inconceivably amount of information and influences in our everyday lives
leads in many cases to an excessive demand.The idea to decouple the
personal perception from the natural timing enables the user to become
aware of his own time.

I'm just going to interject here that this is an interesting idea, and a worthy enough goal, but is the answer more technology? Or might it be alternatives like meditation, prayer, and/or going for a walk? But of course I'm being silly, so let's return to that write-up from Vimeo:

In the inside of the helmet the
video-signal of a camera is processed by a small computer. The
slowed-down images are displayed right before the user's eyes via a
head-mounted display and are simultaneously shown on a monitor on the
outside.
The helmet has three different modes which can be selected by a remote
control:
In the auto-mode time is slowed down automatically and re-accelerated
after a defined interval. The press-mode allows the specific
deceleration of time. In the scroll-mode the user can completely control
the speed of the elapsing of time.
The Decelerator gives the user the possibility to reflect about the flow
of time in general and about the relation between sensory perception,
environment and corporality in particular. Also it dramatically
visualizes how slowing down can potentially cause a loss of the present.

Well, if you want to see some more pictures of this device, and read more about it (if you can read German), go check out the website.As for me, this puts me in mind of an old hit song from my childhood in the 60s, The 59th Street Bridge Song, aka Feelin' Groovy, by Simon and Garfunkel. Those were slower, more relaxed times, and I do remember my father driving us over the 59th Street Bridge as we traveled from our home in Queens (not far from where Simon and Garfunkel grew up), to Manhattan and back. And when I was in high school, I crossed that bridge when I came to it a couple of times on foot, as part of some marathon walks with my old friend, Marty Friedman.

Much time has passed since those days, a lot of water under the bridge you might say, but it's nice to know that old Paul and Art can still sing it nice and tuneful:

Got no deeds to do,
No promises to keep.
I'm dappled and drowsy and ready to sleep.
Let the morning time drop all its petals on me.
Life, I love you,
All is groovy.

Groovy sounds real old-fashioned now, I know, and it wasn't long before it became a cliché and fell out of favor. But it was very much a musical and technological metaphor, a reference to vinyl records whose grooves captured the vibrations or vibes that reproduced those groovy tunes for us to listen to. So, just go ahead and decelerate, and dig those grooves, man, dig those grooves...

Saturday, November 17, 2012

I was recently interviewed by Palash R. Ghosh of the International Business Times about the present state of broadcast journalism and cable news networks, and the interview appeared online on November 10th under the title of TV Broadcast News: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly. As you may have guessed, you can click on that title, and the link will take you to the article over on the IBT website, or just stick around and I'll share it with you here, as I am wont to (and as I want to do as well).The article begins with the following introduction from Mr. Ghosh:

Superstorm Sandy brought to the fore the efficacy and immediacy provided by local
television news stations. For millions of homebound New Yorkers -- those
whose electrical service
did not vanish -- the local TV outlets afforded gripping accounts of
the unfolding disaster and its overwhelming impact on residents.

International Business Times spoke with an expert on mass media to discuss the current state of TV broadcast journalism.

Lance Strate is professor of communication and media studies and director of the professional studies in new media program at Fordham University in New York.

IBTimes: TV
news broadcast stations are purely commercial enterprises that are
driven by ratings. Do you think this is why "broadcast journalism" has
become so degraded and "dumbed down"?

Lance Strate: The
increasing emphasis on profits certainly exacerbates the declining
quality of broadcast journalism, along with the deregulation of
broadcasting that was instituted under the administration of former
President Ronald Reagan, and the concomitant loss of a commitment to
social responsibility on the part of media corporations.

But
the fundamental problem is that the medium of television, broadcast and
cable, stress immediacy and imagery, rather than careful statement of
fact, in-depth analysis, and thoughtful verbal dialogue.

The
broadcast news adage, "if it bleeds, it leads," sums up the emphasis on
exciting visuals that captures the viewers' attention, as opposed to
making determinations based on the significance and seriousness of the
content.

And
in the absence of dramatic footage, drama can be generated by heated
exchanges between individuals, because television also favors the
close-up, and puts a premium on nonverbal expression, so the cool, calm
demeanor of the news anchor conveys credibility, while the pundits
provide an agonistic appeal akin to boxing matches.

The
medium of television is designed to deliver information quickly,
instantaneously, and in favoring the rapid it ends up giving us the
vapid. And the medium of television is designed to be watched, to give
us visual stimulation, dramatic scenes that stimulate the emotions
rather than the intellect, in contrast to print media which require a
great deal of cognitive effort to decode and interpret.

IBT: Women
reporters and newsreaders on TV are almost all physically attractive
and slender -- some are even stunningly beautiful. Are they hired
principally for their looks (as women are in the worlds of fashion and
entertainment)?

Strate: Just
as photography gave us the idea of being photogenic, television gives
us the concept of being telegenic, which is similar but not exactly the
same.

It is
clear that individuals who appear on television tend to be attractive
to viewers, and if not attractive, have a distinctive appearance that
viewers find appealing in some way.

Coming
across well on camera should not be equated with being attractive in
real life, however, as some physical characteristics are
over-emphasized. For example, television personalities often have
larger-than-average heads in relation to their bodies, which plays well
on the screen.

When
it comes to television news, there are exceptions, but there is a
tendency to favor a certain look, attractive but not too attractive,
because even if they are just reading the news off of a teleprompter,
they need to be taken seriously. This is especially true for local
broadcast news, while on cable broadcasts Fox News has pushed the
envelope in their emphasis on very attractive, typically blonde,
conservative news personalities. Broadcasters will say that all of their
journalists are qualified, and being presentable on the air is simply
an added requirement of the job, but I think it is safe to say that once
the minimum requirements are met, say an undergraduate degree in
journalism or communication, employment comes down to looks and
personality.

IBT: One sees very few women who are overweight or middle-age. Are such women "banned" from TV news broadcasts?

Strate: To say they are "banned" is perhaps too strong a word, but they are certainly not favored.

IBT: Men
seem to fare better -- there are quite a number of older (and
unattractive) males on news broadcasts. Or are they also increasingly
hired primarily on looks, too?

Strate: This
reflects our cultural notions on what constitutes “attractiveness.” Men
have traditionally had the advantage of being seen as distinguished as
they age, but male newscasters still tend to be handsome, or at least
clean-cut, since they are provided with proper attire and immaculate
hair styling.

And
while men have it easier than women in the looks department, how many
men on news programs can you think of who have a high-pitched voice?
Broadcasters favor the baritone to convey seriousness for anchors,
reporters, and analysts.

IBT: Are the ratings of these shows driven by the popularity and attractiveness of the anchors and reporters?

Strate: Yes,
to an extent, but it's a tricky business. Look at the failure of Katie
Couric as a network news anchor. Being “perky” is fine for a morning
show that mixes news and entertainment, and perhaps for a special
correspondent, but she lacked the credibility and gravitas we look for
in an anchor, and it is important to understand that credibility and
gravitas are dramatic qualities, relating to presentation of oneself on
the audio-visual medium, a performance attribute that again brings us
back to looks and personality, with the need to fit into a certain
character type or role.

We
can relate anchors and reporters to the host of talk shows and their
associates, so popularity is based in part on those elements, and in
part on the content that they are able to summon up in their roles and
within their programs.

IBT: Back
in the halcyon days of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow, did they
not also have to worry about ratings? Or did they just focus on
delivering serious, hard news?

Strate: Ratings
were never entirely irrelevant, but news was seen as a public service,
necessarily fulfilling [Federal Communications Commission] requirements,
but also the media moguls of that time like [NBC chief David] Sarnoff
and [CBS boss William] Paley had a sense of pride in delivering a
certain quality of journalism.

But tensions over ratings did exist back then, along with pressure from advertisers, and from government.

IBT: One
sees a good number of ethnic minorities (blacks, Hispanics, Asians) on
New York news stations. Are they hired according to a "quota system"? If
so, do you view them as window-dressing"?

Strate: Maybe
not a strict "quota system," but there is an idea of presenting a
certain mix. Some time ago, it shifted from the emphasis on male anchors
to a news team consisting of an older, distinguished-looking man and a
younger, attractive woman, creating a sense of family, with the sports
and weather reporters being the "playful kids.

More
recently, the preferred mix emphasizes racial diversity, and news
programs were for a long time the only place on television where you
would see Asians, often Asian women, who provided racial diversity while
playing off of the stereotype of Asians as being “serious and
intelligent.”

Overall,
there is an almost democratic notion of having the on air mix be
representative of the audience's demographics, but, of course, that is
fundamentally impossible to obtain.

IBT: When
a major story breaks (Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Katrina, 9-11 attacks,
Iraq invasion, etc.) news stations are forced to cover it and refrain
from their usual lightweight/entertainment subjects. Does this, in a
way, hurt their ratings and advertising revenues?

Strate: For
cable news stations, major events increase their ratings, which will
help with advertising revenues on the whole. When there is real news,
especially news that affects us, and when there is great uncertainty
about what is going on, people will turn to news programming.

However, when nothing is going on, viewers will choose entertainment programs-- consequently, news channels are forced to "manufacture" news through interviews, talk, discussion, etc.
This is what Daniel Boorstin referred to as “pseudo-events” in his book, The Image.

And
they will try to present this manufactured "news" in a format that is
entertaining, which has the effect of trivializing serious discourse, as
Neil Postman argued in Amusing Ourselves to Death.

IBT: I have noticed something very peculiar -- almost no one on any New York news stations has a "New York accent. Rather, they all speak in what I would call a flat, broad, Midwestern accent.
Even down South, very few TV news-readers have a "Southern accent"! Is
this done on purpose? What's the point of "diversity" if everyone talks
and sounds the same?

Strate: That's
a longstanding practice -- the elimination or at least minimization of
regional accents in broadcasting. When you are trying to reach the
largest possible audience, you want to eliminate any hint of the local
and regional.

A "New York accent" or a "Southern drawl would
only be played for comedy under these conditions. But it also reflects
the decline of regional accents generally, which is a result of great
mobility, especially more migration to the south and southwest. But what
counts as "diversity" on television is not the sound, but the look,
because television is a visual medium.

And given a visual bias, television favors a diverse set of attractive faces to gain the attention of its audience.

There
is an interesting subtle message here, though, that there may be
differences in the way we look, but that acoustically we are all
Americans.

IBT: Do you think the quality of TV news broadcasting will continue to get worse?

Strate: Yes
and no. As what we call television expands into an ever larger array of
channels, it has opened the door to greater political bias, first with
Fox News becoming the voice of conservative Republicans, and then with
MSNBC becoming its mirror image on behalf of liberal Democrats.

I
think we can look for further diversity of politically oriented news
channels, and more specialized channels in the sense that we already
have several channels devoted to business news, sports news, and the
weather.

But
this may also allow for one or more networks to reclaim the mantle of
objectivity in reporting, and to some degree of in-depth coverage.

I believe there will be a market for high-quality journalism on television, although it may be confined to elite and highly educated audiences, much like the audiences for PBS.

Overall,
though, objectivity in journalism was born out of print culture, and it
is dying along with it, we're seeing a return to an electronic version
of the partisan press, and in audiovisual formats sensationalism and
personality will continue to dominate, while an elite minority will turn
to text-based news sources for a better source of fact and opinion.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Last year I put up a post after Ted Carpenter passed away, Edmund Carpenter 1922-2011, and that was certainly not the first time that this innovative anthropologist and media ecology scholar has come up here on Blog Time Passing.Carpenter, as you no doubt know, was a colleague of and collaborator with Marshall McLuhan, at the University of Toronto during the 1950s, where they worked together as part of an interdisciplinary group, and put out 9 issues of the groundbreaking journal, Explorations, and here at Fordham University where Carpenter joined McLuhan for his year as the Albert Schweitzer Chair in the Humanities. And in case you missed this last year, click here to see a page on the Fordham website where you can listen to a class that was taught by Carpenter, and one taught by McLuhan.So, just before McLuhan came to Fordham, his bestselling book, The Medium is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects, was published, illustrated by Quentin Fiore, and produced by Jerome Agel. That was in 1967, it was entirely experimental and innovative, and opened the door to a number of other books of a similar nature, as I discussed in a post last month, Dancing the Book.

And one of the books to follow in the footsteps of that awesome Agel production was created by Carpenter, together with the photographer Ken Heyman, and entitled They Became What They Beheld. The title is an allusion to Psalm 115, which McLuhan also quotes in Understanding Media. Here it is in its entirety, in the King James Version:

115 Not unto us, OLord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake.

2 Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God?

3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.

5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:

6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:

7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.

8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.

9 O Israel, trust thou in theLord: he is their help and their shield.

10 O house of Aaron, trust in theLord: he is their help and their shield.

11 Ye that fear theLord, trust in theLord: he is their help and their shield.

12 TheLordhath been mindful of us: he will bless us; he will bless the house of Israel; he will bless the house of Aaron.

13 He will bless them that fear theLord, both small and great.

14 TheLordshall increase you more and more, you and your children.

15 Ye are blessed of theLordwhich made heaven and earth.

16 The heaven, even the heavens, are theLord's: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.

17 The dead praise not theLord, neither any that go down into silence.

18 But we will bless theLordfrom this time forth and for evermore. Praise theLord.

This Psalm stands as an early expression of a media ecological sensibility, the idea being that the technologies we create in turn recreate us, or as McLuhan's associate and former Fordham professor John Culkin put it, we shape our tools and thereafter they shape us. It also expresses the polemic against imagery that reshaped the media environment and hence the culture of ancient Israel and the Jewish people.

Note that her discussion of the relationship between artists and audiences relates directly to the concept of formal causality, as discussed in the recently published Media and Formal Cause by Marshall and Eric McLuhan. It also brings to mind Walter Ong's wonderful point, that "the writer's audience is always a fiction." And her argument in favor of content connects to Neil Postman's well known critique of television in Amusing Ourselves to Death, and while he'd probably differ on the extent to which content leads the way on YouTube, I know he'd enjoy and appreciate this video.

As for myself, I am content makes for an interesting pun, don't you think? Me content, you audience? And happiness is a warm medium? Or maybe a cool one...

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

So, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Walter J. Ong, one of the scholars most central to the media ecology intellectual tradition. And in honor of his centenary, I created a pecha kucha presentation, which I performed live at the 80th annual meeting of the New York State Communication Association on October 19-21, 2012.

A pecha kucha is meant to be a live performance, a short talk accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation in which there are 20 slides, and they are set to advance every 20 seconds, so the entire presentation lasts approximately 6 minutes and 40 seconds. This presentation fudges that slightly because I added a title slide that is not part of the 20, kind of like the front matter in a book that has the small letter Roman numerals and so is not part of the regular page numbering.

Now, you may remember my post from last year, The Medium Is..., where I explained how doing pecha kuchas at NYSSCA was all the idea of Mary Ann Allison. And on the blogpost you can find the pecha kucha I created last year in honor of the Marshall McLuhan centenary. If you haven't seen it before, you might want to take a look. Or maybe not.

Actually, what's over there is not an actual pecha kucha presentation, which as I explained is a live performance, but rather a video I created based on the PowerPoint visuals and a specially recorded version of the talk. And that is also what you'll find here. This year's video (and that link will take you over to YouTube to see it on its own page) came out a bit rough, audio-wise, and a bit fuzzy, visual-wise, but I decided to leave it that way as it somehow fits with the subject matter.So now, without further ado, here is The Word:

And as an extra added bonus for Blog TIme Passing readers, I'm going to include the written text of the talk here as well. I've put into italics any passage that is a direct quotation from Walter Ong, or a close paraphrase of what he's written (as well as book titles).

The Word

A Pecha Kucha in Honor of the Centenary of the Birth of

Walter Jackson Ong, SJ

1The presence of the word Our common human heritageThe cause of great commotionCommiseration, commemorationCommitments, commendationsCommerce and commoditiesCommandments and their commentaryCommunion and communityAnd the distinctive characterOf human communication

2The word is spokenSpeech is the wordThe human species is hardwired for soundWith a larynx that makes possibleA wide range of vocalizationAnd a tongue that allows usA broad range of articulationSo that with the breath of lifeComes the spirit of the word

3The word is governedBy the human brainWithin the cerebral cortexBroca's area gives us speechWernicke's area comprehensionAnd language acquisitionBegins in early infancyWith babbling and baby talkSignaling the readiness to learn

4The language that we learnBecomes our mother tongueAnd the words that we learn to speak out loudWe later learn to say In silence only to ourselvesOur outer dialogue becomesAn inner monologueAs the words we speak transform intoTools for thoughtThe mind an echo-chamber

5The words we speak are tools we useTo construct the world we live inGuiding our sensesDirecting our attentionTelling us what to ignoreHow to think, feel, and actDifferent languages give us different wordsAnd something is always lost in translationAs different words give us different worlds

6In every village, tribe or clanIn every society known to woman or manWe find the presence of the wordThe opposable thumb gave us primitive toolsBut more importantly made it possibleTo carry things with our handsFreeing the mouth for making soundsOpposable tongues gave us Our tools for talk and thought

7A gesture requires a line of sightA warning cry can come from any directionThe survival value of the spoken wordConferred victory in natural selectionHand signals can substitute if neededBut no human population knownChooses sign language over speech

8But the spoken word is ephemeralOng says,Sound only exists as its going out of existenceWhen I say the word existenceBy the time I get to –tenceExist is gone, never to be recoveredPause a video and you get a still imagePause an audio recording and all that you get Is silence

9Ong says, Sound cannot be soundingWithout the use of powerA hunter can see a buffaloSmell, taste, and touch a buffaloBut if he hears a buffaloHe better watch outSomething is going onAll sound is dynamicEspecially oral utteranceWhich comes from inside living organisms

10Ong says, sounded word is power and actionThe Hebrew word dabarMeans word but also means eventPrayers and magic spells are inertWhen written in a bookTheir power comesWhen they are said out loudNeither do an oath or a curse take effectUntil the moment they are spoken 11Without writing there is no wayTo capture wordsAnd store them over timeAnd so, Ong says, You know what you can recallAnd what you need to do is toThink memorable thoughtsOral cultures depend on mnemonicsRepetition and collective memoryContinual commemorationTo keep knowledge alive

12Oral tradition uses rhythm and melodyFormulas and clichésProverbs and sayingsPoetry and songLike the epic of GilgameshFrom MesopotamiaAnd the old English BeowolfAnd the ancient Greek Iliad and OdysseySaid to have been composedBy the poet Homer who was blindAnd listened as the muses sang to him

13Oral memory is rarely word for wordVerbatim memorization is based on a textThat can be viewed and reviewed to testThe accuracy of memory and therebyAchieve perfectionOral memory instead is characterizedBy multiformity, variationEmbellishment and improvisation

14Sound speaks to interioritySight, touch, smell and tasteGive us only surfacesSounding gives us depthTakes us past the exteriorInside objects, bodies, and mindsWe interiorize speech as thoughtAnd exteriorize thought as speechEvery utterance is an outering 15The spoken word creates communityAs a group we listen together as oneAudience is a singular nounBut as readers we split apartEven when reading the exact same text We become separate, private individualsLost in our own thought-worldAs Ong says, Sight isolates, sound incorporates

16Sound is sacred, vision profaneIn the beginning was the wordAnd the word was spokenIn the Torah God says out loudLet there be light!Voice comes before visionIn Christian theology, Ong saysGod the Father speaks his SonHe does not inscribe him

17Ong says,Words are not signsSigns are seen and not heardObservations not conversationsWhile words are sounds and not sightedWriting is a secondary symbol systemA code of a code representingSpoken words as visual marks on a surfaceNotation for the recording of sound

18Writing is a technologyIt is the technologizing of the wordIt's used to study and edit our speechGiving us rhetoric and poetics as wellCreating interfaces of the wordWriting on parchmentWhich is made from animal skinsTurns the word into fleshWhile printing turns words into thingsMaking them objects instead of events

19Writing, printing and now electronic mediaAre transformations of the wordBut a flood of information and images threatenThe humiliation of the wordWhile scholars like Jacques Ellul Neil Postman and Walter OngServe as defenders of the word

20Homer spoke of winged wordsThe Big Bopper sangThat the bird is the wordThere are words that delightAnd words that exciteWords that bring frightWords that make us fightWords that inviteAnd words we reciteWords that rhymeAnd words that don'tBut as long as human life remains so will The persistence of the word

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

One of the great things about working for a nonprofit, educational institution is that it's not all about making money, maximizing profits, and efficiency. It's not the way to go if your goal is to get rich, but if your interests lie elsewhere, it is a very satisfying and nurturing environment to operate within.

Saturday night at the Meir Ribalow memorial that was the subject of my previous post, Meir Ribalow Memorial at The Players, one of the speakers reminded us of something that I've heard Meir say a number of times, especially at ceremonies where the Harold U. Ribalow Prize was awarded, named after Meir's father, and given by Hadassah Magazine to the author of the work of Jewish fiction judged to be the year's best. It's one of my favorite quotes from Meir, he'd say, "In our family, making money was considered a perfectly legitimate thing to do... for those without any other talent." Not surprisingly, Meir thrived in the university setting, and I heard from a number of people at the memorial how much teaching at Fordham meant to him.

For myself, I have to admit that it's easy to take it all for granted, especially when it becomes part of your daily/weekly/monthly/yearly routine. Sometimes it seems like it's just work, just a job. But then there are times I'm reminded that working at Fordham has given me a chance to join together with some very special people, like Meir. And there are times when I'm reminded about just how special a place Fordham is. Coincidentally, this happened almost at the same time as Meir's memorial.

What I am referring to is the statement that our president, Joseph M. McShane, SJ, made in response to an event planned by our College Republicans student club to invite Ann Coulter to speak. If you're not familiar with this woman, suffice it to say that she is one of those right-wing pundits whose speech is truly hateful and angry, full of putdowns, insults, and incitements to engage in violent activity. I'm sure you can find plenty of examples over on YouTube, I won't bother to embed any videos here, I just don't want her on my blog.

As the parent of an autistic child, what is perhaps the most egregious example of her offensive talk is her use of the word "retard" to characterize President Obama. Beyond the disrespect that she has every right to express in a democratic society, she is using the word in a way that is every bit as offensive, and hurtful as a racial, ethnic, or religious bigot-word, and she has been utterly unapologetic about it.

As much I am lauding educational environments in particular here, I want to note that at most other institutions, inviting Coulter to speak would have been met by a shrug of the shoulders from the administration, and a ducking behind some reminder about academic freedom. And as much as that is a value I wholeheartedly endorse, along with First Amendment rights, I am so very proud of how Fordham's president handled this, that I want to share his statement with you, and preserve it here on my blog of record:

University Statement on Ann Coulter Appearance | November 9, 2012

The College Republicans, a student club at Fordham University, has invited Ann Coulter to speak on campus on November 29. The event is funded through student activity fees and is not open to the public nor the media. Student groups are allowed, and encouraged, to invite speakers who represent diverse, and sometimes unpopular, points of view, in keeping with the canons of academic freedom. Accordingly, the University will not block the College Republicans from hosting their speaker of choice on campus.

To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement. There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative—more heat than light—and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.

As members of a Jesuit institution, we are called upon to deal with one another with civility and compassion, not to sling mud and impugn the motives of those with whom we disagree or to engage in racial or social stereotyping. In the wake of several bias incidents last spring, I told the University community that I hold out great contempt for anyone who would intentionally inflict pain on another human being because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed.

“Disgust”was the word I used to sum up my feelings about those incidents. Hate speech, name-calling, and incivility are completely at odds with the Jesuit ideals that have always guided and animated Fordham.

Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech. This is especially true at a university, and I fully expect our students, faculty, alumni, parents, and staff to voice their opposition, civilly and respectfully, and forcefully.

The College Republicans have unwittingly provided Fordham with a test of its character: do we abandon our ideals in the face of repugnant speech and seek to stifle Ms. Coulter’s (and the student organizers’) opinions, or do we use her appearance as an opportunity to prove that our ideas are better and our faith in the academy—and one another—stronger? We have chosen the latter course, confident in our community, and in the power of decency and reason to overcome hatred and prejudice.

Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President

Now, I think it is pretty clear from this that Fordham is a special place, one where there still are certain core values and principles that speak to the importance of human dignity and compassion. This stems from the fact that Fordham is a Jesuit institution, but of course these are values and principles that are shared across faiths and creeds, by all individuals of good will and ethical character.

Not long after this statement was issued, the College Republican club announced that they had canceled Coulter's appearance. In response to this decision, the following statement was issued:

University Statement | November 10, 2012

Late yesterday, Fordham received word that the College Republicans, a student club at the University, has rescinded its lecture invitation to Ann Coulter.

Allow me to give credit where it is due: the leadership of the College Republicans acted quickly, took responsibility for their decisions, and expressed their regrets sincerely and eloquently. Most gratifying, I believe, is that they framed their decision in light of Fordham’s mission and values. There can be no finer testament to the value of a Fordham education and the caliber of our students.

Yesterday I wrote that the College Republicans provided Fordham with a test of its character. They, the University community, and our extended Fordham family passed the test with flying colors, engaging in impassioned but overwhelmingly civil debate on politics, academic freedom, and freedom of speech.

We can all be proud of Fordham today, and I am proud to serve you.

Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President

So, I am indeed proud of Fordham, as a member of the faculty, and for the past few months as the parent of a Fordham student (my son) as well. And I am proud as well of our president, for his willingness to take a stand on this issue and rise up in the defense of common decency, for his judicious response in the form of admonition (rather than relying on some more coercive form of ammunition), and for his eloquence in communicating all this, truly exemplifying the Jesuit ideal of eloquentia perfecta.

And I just want to add that I communicated to Fr. McShane my appreciation, and was further impressed by the fact that he is now concerned about reprisals against the College Republican club for having extended the invitation in the first place.

Quite right! Coulter deserves to be left out in the cold. There would be no better response to her vile discourse than to be completely ignored and relegated to the marginal media outlets and platforms that she appeals to. But for our students, this should be nothing worse than a learning experience, a chance to grow, mature, and learn from role models at the university about character and conduct. That's the kind of conservatism, of conservation, or the conserving activity (to use Neil Postman's phrase) that we all can sign on to!